Slow news day?: "Obama in Pee Pee" takes over the news

While the scandal in Benghazi hasn't been able to capture the full attention of the media, oddly enough, Glenn's quality art project from last night's show on TheBlaze TV has gotten plenty of coverage.

After revealing his plan to auction the quality "art" projects from last night's program to Mercury One's Hope for the Holidays fund, including "Obama in Pee Pee", the media began buzzing about the controversial pieces of "art".

Buzzfeed was among the first to pick up the story after Glenn created his works of "art" live on air.

In a video discussing a protest of a recent art exhibit featuring a painting of Obama as Jesus on the cross, Glenn Beck went the extra mile to really illustrate his point regarding the importance freedom of speech. In a beret and a French accent, he showed off a piece of controversial art he created himself: a mason jar of his own pee that he dropped a dashboard bobblehead figurine of Obama into.

Though he says the urine is real, it looks like it's pretty fake (or else Mr. Beck may be seriously ill).

He plans to sell his mixed-media sculpture for $25,000. If it sells, he says he'll make a second work featuring Michelle Obama.

Not long after making his announcement that "Obama in Pee Pee" was up for auction, Ebay removed the item due to a "violation" of their rules causing even more of a stir.

Here is just a handful of examples of way the media is reacting to Glenn's charity "art" auction…

"In a video on his website, Beck said the crude “sculpture” was a response to a Boston artist who painted a picture of Obama looking like Jesus on the cross, in a crown of thorns and with arms outstretched.

“Art is in the eye of the beholder and this guy has a right to do this,” the wannabe denim mogul said on the site.

“[The Constitution] says I can’t stop him, and the spirit of that document is that I shouldn’t try,” he said."

The NY Daily News

 

"After Beck made “Obama in Pee Pee” on his program, he announced he would sell it online along with other original Beck artwork to raise money for charity. It was listed on eBay, where it reached a price of $11,000 in less than an hour.

The item, however, was quickly removed. In an email sent by eBay to Beck, eBay said it does “not allow the sale of bodily waste,” despite Beck’s claim that the “urine” in the jar is actually beer. Beck was refunded his listing fee and told not to re-list the item."

Mashable

 

The hook to all of this was a Boston artist who painted Obama being crucified. Beck said he didn't like the painting, but he wanted to support the artist's right to do it. So he unveiled what he called "Obama in Pee Pee," which was just about what it sounded like -- except that Obama was in a jar filled with beer, technically, making it a whole lot less shocking. Beck said he would sell it on his website for $25,000.

The jar was put up for auction on Ebay, which later removed the item on Wednesday morning. Beck tweeted the news, writing, "#ObamainPeePee was up to $11k before our @ebay injustice…"

Huffington Post

 

Now that he's cornered the denim market, noted patriot Glenn Beck has set his sights on an even more lucrative business. As part of a bizarre campaign to prove the importance of the first amendment, Beckfilled a jar with what he at first claimed to be urine (he later admitted it was beer) and then placed an Obama toy inside. He has plans to sell the "art," which Beck titled "Obama in Pee Pee," on his website for the reasonable price of $25,000.

Gawker

This is saying something: This Glenn Beck segment is one of the most bizarre you'll see him do.

Beck was discussing a painting depicting President Barack Obama as Jesus Christ, and he decided he would make his own "art" — which he called "Obama in Pee Pee."

Business Insider

 

To show just how much Beck supports every American's freedom of expression, he created his own potentially offensive piece of art. Using "a Mason jar with a little pee-pee in it," Beck submerged a small Obama statue in a jar of his [presumably fake] urine. "Flowbama," as Beck calls it, is for sale for the "bargain price of $25,000."

E! Online 

 On his radio show Tuesday, Beck said that he didn’t like the painting because of the whole Obama-as-Jesus subtext, but that he supported the artist’s right under the First Amendment to create and display it.

“Art is in the eye of the beholder, and this guy has a right to do this. I think it’s offensive. I don’t think it’s close to reality, but whatever floats your boat. I support his right to do exactly that. I agree with him that people who are upset should not trump his right to be able to do it and be able to hang it wherever he wants — as long as it’s wanted there,” Beck said.

In solidarity with the Boston artist’s First Amendment rights, Beck jumped multiple, crazier steps ahead by creating “Obama in Pee Pee.”

Daily Caller

Michele Malkin's site, Twitchy, captured how the reaction spread across social media

...and how some of the more sensitive lefties (Michael Moore), weren't pleased.

Pleased or not, social media played one of the biggest rolls in spreading the word of Glenn's "Obama in Pee Pee" ebay injustice. The hashtag #ObamainPeePee quickly began trending nationwide.

 

 

If the media had this strong of a reaction to this morning's stunt, you're going to want to watch tonight's show at 5pm ET on TheBlaze TV when Glenn hosts a "telethon" to auction off "Obama in Pee Pee" for charity. The artwork will go to the highest bidder. To place your bid, email ObamaPeePee@glennbeck.com with your bid in the subject line.

Glenn will update viewers live on the show and via Twitter of the highest bids rolling in.

Good luck!

 

 

 

 

 

 

Stop trying to be right and think of the children

Mario Tama/Getty Images

All the outrage this week has mainly focused on one thing: the evil Trump administration and its minions who delight in taking children from their illegal immigrant parents and throwing them all in dungeons. Separate dungeons, mind you.

That makes for a nice, easy storyline, but the reality is less convenient. Most Americans seem to agree that separating children from their parents — even if their parents entered the US illegally — is a bad thing. But what if that mom and dad you're trying to keep the kids with aren't really the kids' parents? Believe it or not, fraud happens.

RELATED: Where were Rachel Maddow's tears for immigrant children in 2014?

While there are plenty of heartbreaking stories of parents simply seeking a chance for a better life for their children in the US, there are also corrupt, abusive human traffickers who profit from the illegal immigration trade. And sorting all of this out is no easy task.

This week, the Department of Homeland Security said that since October 2017, more than 300 children have arrived at the border with adults claiming to be their parents who turned out not to be relatives. 90 of these fraud cases came from the Rio Grande Valley sector alone.

In 2017, DHS reported 46 causes of fraudulent family claims. But there have already been 191 fraud cases in 2018.

Shouldn't we be concerned about any child that is smuggled by a human trafficker?

When Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen pointed out this 315 percent increase, the New York Times was quick to give these family fraud cases "context" by noting they make up less than one percent of the total number of illegal immigrant families apprehended at the southern border. Their implication was that Nielsen was exaggerating the numbers. Even if the number of fraud cases at the border was only 0.001 percent, shouldn't we be concerned about any child that is smuggled by a human trafficker?

This is the most infuriating part of this whole conversation this week (if you can call it a "conversation") — that both sides have an angle to defend. And while everyone's busy yelling and making their case, children are being abused.

What if we just tried, for two seconds, to love having mercy more than we love having to be right all the time?

Remember when cartoons were happy things? Each panel took you on a tiny journey, carrying you to an unexplored place. In Understanding Comics, Scott McCloud writes:

The comics creator asks us to join in a silent dance of the seen and the unseen. The visible and the invisible. This dance is unique to comics. No other artform gives so much to its audience while asking so much from them as well. This is why I think it's a mistake to see comics as a mere hybrid of the graphic arts and prose fiction. What happens between . . . panels is a kind of magic only comics can create.

When that magic is manipulated or politicized, it often devolves the artform into a baseless thing. Yesterday, Occupy Wall Street published the perfect example of low-brow deviation of the artform: A six-panel approach at satire, which imitates the instructions-panel found in the netted cubbyhole behind seats on airplanes. The cartoon is a critique of the recent news about immigrant children being separated from their parents after crossing the border. It is a step-by-step guide to murdering US Immigrations and Customs Enforcement agents.

RELATED: Cultural appropriation has jumped the shark, and everyone is noticing

The first panel shows a man shoving an infant into a cage meant for Pomeranians. The following five panels feature instructions, and include pictures of a cartoonish murder.

The panels read as follows:

  1. If an ICE agent tries to take your child at the border, don't panic.
  2. Pull your child away as quickly as possibly by force.
  3. Gently tell your child to close his/her eyes and ears so they won't witness what you are about to do.
  4. Grab the ICE agent from behind and push your knife into his chest with an upward thrust, causing the agent's sternum to break.
  5. Reach into his chest and pull out his still beating heart.
  6. Hold his bloody heart out for all other agents to see, and tell them that the same fate awaits them if they f--- with your child again.

Violent comics are nothing new. But most of the time, they remain in the realms of invented worlds — in other words, not in our own, with reference to actual people, let alone federal agents.

The mainstream media made a game of crying racism with every cartoon depiction of Obama during his presidency, as well as during his tenure as Senator, when the New Yorker, of all things, faced scrutiny for depicting him in "Muslim clothing." Life was a minefield for political cartoonists during the Obama era.

Chris Hondros/Getty Images

This year, we saw the leftist outrage regarding The Simpsons character Apu — a cartoon representation of a highly-respected, though cartoonishly-depicted, character on a cartoon show composed of cartoonishly-depicted characters.

We all remember Charlie Hebdo, which, like many outlets that have used cartoon satire to criticize Islam, faced the wrath and ire of people unable to see even the tamest representation of the prophet, Muhammad.

Interesting, isn't it? Occupy Wall Street publishes a cartoon that advocates murdering federal agents, and critics are told to lighten up. Meanwhile, the merest depiction of Muhammad has resulted in riots throughout the world, murder and terror on an unprecedented scale.

The intersection of Islam and comics is complex enough to have its own three-hour show, so we'll leave it at that, for now. Although, it is worth mentioning the commentary by satirical website The Onion, which featured a highly offensive cartoon of all the major religious figures except Muhammad. It noted:

Following the publication of the image above, in which the most cherished figures from multiple religious faiths were depicted engaging in a lascivious sex act of considerable depravity, no one was murdered, beaten, or had their lives threatened.

Of course, Occupy Wall Street is free to publish any cartoon they like. Freedom of speech, and so on—although there have been several instances in which violent cartoons were ruled to have violated the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" limitation of the First Amendment.

Posting it to Twitter is another issue — this is surely in violation of Twitter's violent content policy, but something tells me nothing will come of it. It's a funny world, isn't it? A screenshot of a receipt from Chick-fil-A causes outrage but a cartoon advocating murder gets crickets.

RELATED: Twitter mob goes ballistic over Father's Day photo of Caitlyn Jenner. Who cares?

In Understanding Comics, Scott McCloud concludes that, "Today the possibilities for comics are — as they've always been — endless. Comics offers . . . range and versatility, with all the potential imagery of film and painting plus the intimacy of the written word. And all that's needed is the desire to be heard, the will to learn, and the ability to see."

Smile, and keep moving forward.

Crude and awful as the Occupy Wall Street comic is, the best thing we can do is nod and look elsewhere for the art that will open our eyes. Let the lunatics draw what they want, let them stew in their own flawed double standards. Otherwise, we're as shallow and empty as they are, and nothing good comes of that. Smile, and keep moving forward.

Things are getting better. Show the world how to hear, how to learn, how to see.

People should start listening to Nikki Haley

ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS/AFP/Getty Images

Okay. Let's take a vote. You know, an objective, quantifiable count. How many resolutions has the UN Human Rights Council adopted condemning dictatorships? Easy. Well. How do you define "dictatorship"?

Well, one metric is the UN Human Rights Council Condemnation. How many have the United Nations issued to China, with a body count higher than a professional Call of Duty player?

Zero.

How about Venezuela, where socialism is devouring its own in the cruelest, most unsettling ways imaginable?

Zero.

And Russia, home of unsettling cruelty and rampant censorship, murder and (actual) homophobia?

Zero.

Iraq? Zero. Turkey? Iraq? Zero. Cuba? Zero. Pakistan? Zero.

RELATED: Nikki Haley just dropped some serious verbal bombs on Russia at the UN

According to UN Human Rights Council Condemnations, 2006-2016, none of these nations is as dangerous as we'd imagined. Or, rather, none of them faced a single condemnation. Meanwhile, one country in particular has faced unbelievable scrutiny and fury — you'll never guess which country.

No, it's not Somalia. It's Israel. With 68 UN Human Rights Council Condemnations! In fact, the number of total United Nations condemnations against Israel outnumbers the total of condemnations against all other countries combined. The only country that comes close is Syria, with 15.

The Trump administration withdrew from the United Nations Human Rights Council on Tuesday in protest of what it perceives as an entrenched bias against Israel and a willingness to allow notorious human rights abusers as members.

In an address to the UN Security Council on Tuesday, Nikki Haley said:

Let's remember that the Hamas terrorist organization has been inciting violence for years, long before the United States decided to move our embassy. This is what is endangering the people of Gaza. Make no mistake, Hamas is pleased with the results from yesterday... No country in this chamber would act with more restraint than Israel has.

Maybe people should start listening to Haley. Hopefully, they will. Not likely, but there's no crime in remaining hopeful.

Here's a question unique to our times: "Should I tell my father 'Happy Father's Day,' even though he (she?) is now one of my mothers?"

Father's Day was four days ago, yes, but this story is just weird enough to report on. One enjoyable line to read was this gem from Hollywood Gossip: "Cait is a woman and a transgender icon, but she is also and will always be the father of her six children."

RELATED: If Bruce was never a he and always a she, who won the men's Olympic gold in 1976?

Imagine reading that to someone ten — even five — years ago. And, honestly, there's something nice about it. But the strangeness of its having ever been written overpowers any emotional impact it might bring.

"So lucky to have you," wrote Kylie Jenner, in the Instagram caption under pre-transition pictures of Bruce Jenner.

Look. I risk sounding like a tabloid by mere dint of having even mentioned this story, but the important element is the cultural sway that's occurring. The original story was that a band of disgruntled Twitter users got outraged about the supposed "transphobic" remarks by Jenner's daughter.

But, what we should be saying is, "who the hell cares?" Who cares what one Jenner says to another — and more importantly and on a far deeper level — who cares what some anonymous Twitter user has to say?

When are we going to stop playing into the hands of the Twitter mob?

When are we going to stop playing into the hands of the Twitter mob? Because, at the moment, they've got it pretty good. They have a nifty relationship with the mainstream media: One or two Twitter users get outraged by any given thing — in this case Jenner and supposed transphobia. In return, the mainstream media use the Twitter comment as a source.

Then, a larger Twitter audience points to the article itself as proof that there's some kind of systemic justice at play. It's a closed-market currency, where the negative feedback loop of proof and evidence is composed of faulty accusations. Isn't it a hell of a time to be alive?